Anyone tried running FSc on a 6 or 8 core CPU?

 

I'd be really keen to see how well it takes advantage of all those cores.

If you meant FSX, Intel is the way to go. I have the latest 8 core AMD and is not even close to the Intel performance with FSX.

Edit** Having re-read your post I gather you mean Flight school!

Sorry, I misinterpreted what was posted so I wrote something below referring to fsx. I only have a 4 core so can't truly answer your question but I do see one core at 100% and the other 3 ticking along so I guess it behaves in a similar way to fsx?

 

Ill leave the below text as I feel it is still relevant although I'm happy to be proved wrong.

 

It doesn't really take much advantage of multi core. Although it will use other cores to help with texture loading it doesn't really make much difference. It is why you will see one core still maxed out and the others not doing a great deal. It barely uses 4 cores as it is still primarily reliant on single core clock speed so 6 or 8 won't bring any real benefit.

Chris

Most of the first core's issues come from it not making use of multi-threaded rendering, which is a DX11+ feature. The name is misleading, because none of these flight sims render on the CPU. It's more for allowing you to issue draw calls and send things to the GPU on multiple threads. That would be a better name for it.

 

If you turn off all the rendering options you'll find that the main thread is still being utilized quite a bit, because FSX and anything based on it's engine does physics on that thread too, as well as setting up draw calls and sending things to the GPU. There was talk by Phil Taylor from ACES suggesting that the physics could be multithreaded down the road or in future revisions of the simulator, but they never got around to it due to what happened to ACES in 2009.

 

I don't think P3D even uses MT rendering from what I saw in my benchmarks and tests with Intel's Platform Analyzer.

 

I wouldn't say it's solely clock speed dependent. I had a GPU fail on me, and lost 17 FPS in autogen performance downgrading from a 670 to a 950.

Most of the first core's issues come from it not making use of multi-threaded rendering, which is a DX11+ feature. The name is misleading, because none of these flight sims render on the CPU. It's more for allowing you to issue draw calls and send things to the GPU on multiple threads. That would be a better name for it.

 

If you turn off all the rendering options you'll find that the main thread is still being utilized quite a bit, because FSX and anything based on it's engine does physics on that thread too, as well as setting up draw calls and sending things to the GPU. There was talk by Phil Taylor from ACES suggesting that the physics could be multithreaded down the road or in future revisions of the simulator, but they never got around to it due to what happened to ACES in 2009.

 

I don't think P3D even uses MT rendering from what I saw in my benchmarks and tests with Intel's Platform Analyzer.

 

I wouldn't say it's solely clock speed dependent. I had a GPU fail on me, and lost 17 FPS in autogen performance downgrading from a 670 to a 950.

 

I find it really strange that you lost 17FPS. Isn't the 950 supposed to be almost on par with the 670?

The 950 has a higher clock speed, but half the amount of shaders on the card (1344 vs 768).